I didn't say max TARGET sessions, I said Max sessions. It is now possible to
set that as an absolute. By default, it is 512 per device.

Siobhan


On 1/11/07 1:20 AM, "George Sinclair" <George.Sinclair AT NOAA DOT GOV> wrote:

> Max target sessions is not absolute, server parallelism is. If for
> example, you only have one appendable tape for the given pool, and you
> set max sessions on all affected devices to, say 8, but your running
> group(s) consist of 50 save sets, then there's nothing to prevent NW
> from upping the sessions from 8 to 10 or 12, maybe even higher. I've
> seen NW do this any number of times. Typically, NW will try to down the
> numbers back to the max sessions as soon as it can, but it might take a
> while. Of course, it does abide by this if it has another volume it can
> load, and then once that's maxed out if it has another, etc., etc. but
> if it needs more and there are no more tapes and/or available devices
> then it can and will up the sessions on one or more as necessary.
> 
> George
> 
> Siobhán Ellis wrote:
>> You can, by defining max sessions per device - laborious, but will work
>> 
>> 
>> On 31/10/07 1:19 PM, "Curtis Preston" <cpreston AT GLASSHOUSE DOT COM> wrote:
>> 
>>   
>>> Now, if we could just limit the number of sessions by storage node.
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> W. Curtis Preston
>>> Backup Blog @ www.backupcentral.com
>>> VP Data Protection, GlassHouse Technologies
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT 
>>> EDU] On
>>> Behalf Of George Sinclair
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:13 PM
>>> To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
>>> Subject: Re: [Networker] Max server parallelism?
>>> 
>>> Thanks to all who responded. We've given this horse a very nice burial
>>> with all respects. He would be ashamed to come back. :-D
>>> Seriously, this was all very useful information that I just manage to
>>> forget eventually. Now, I feel better as I have to add more drives to
>>> one of our libraries on one of the snodes, and I was initially concerned
>>> 
>>> about maxing out on sessions. Looks like we have a ways to go, though,
>>> before that will happen.
>>> 
>>> George
>>> 
>>> Davina Treiber wrote:
>>>     
>>>> Absolute maximum server parallelism is 512. This is what you get with
>>>> Enterprise Edition, and you could probably achieve it with Power
>>>> Edition too if you added enough storage node licences.
>>>> 
>>>> To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu 
>>>> and
>>>> type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to
>>>> networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with
>>>> this list. You can access the archives at
>>>> http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
>>>> via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER
>>>> 
>>>>       
>> 
>> 
>> Siobhán
>> 
>> To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and 
>> type
>> "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to
>> networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with 
>> this
>> list. You can access the archives at
>> http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
>> via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER
>> 
>>   
> 


Siobhán

To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and 
type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to 
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this 
list. You can access the archives at 
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER